Activists open abortion center in front of Polish parliament on Women's Day
Polish abortion rights activists opened a center across from the parliament building in Warsaw on Saturday where women can go to have abortions with pills, either alone or with other women.
Opening the center on International Women's Day across from the legislature was a symbolic challenge to authorities in the traditionally Roman Catholic nation, which has one of Europe 's most restrictive abortion laws.
A small but loud group of protesters demonstrated outside the 'Abotak' center as activists gathered inside for its inauguration. They blasted loud sounds of babies' cries and held huge, gruesome posters.
'We will never allow people to kill Polish children on demand' said one of the anti-abortion protesters, Marek Krawczyk, as he held a rosary high. 'We warn all Polish politicians not to introduce disgraceful decisions.'
The abortion rights activists with Abortion Dream Team had private security guards standing at the door, while police also formed a barrier between protesters and the center.
'We came here to claim the space and to remind you in your face that women have abortions in Poland and we are not going to wait for your empty promises,' one of the activists, Kinga Jelińska said, a message directed at the country's politicians. She wore a mint green sweatshirt with the words 'abortion is normal.'
Jelińska said it was the first stationary abortion center in Poland, but that centers like it have been founded in Latin American countries with restrictive laws like Mexico and Argentina.
She and her colleagues said that it will be a safe place for women who prefer not to have abortions alone in their bathrooms at home. Women can show up for advice, or to have abortions together, or in a space alone.
Asked if the center would provide the pills themselves, Jelińska said that was between the activists and the women who need abortions.
One of the activists who launched the center is Justyna Wydrzyńska, who was found guilty by a court in 2023 of abetting an abortion. That ruling was recently annulled and a retrial was ordered.
The organization has been trying to destigmatize abortion in a society where they say abortions are common, most carried out by women at home with pills, but abortion remains a taboo topic. They have also been pushing for a change in the law, but without success.
The country's centrist prime minister, Donald Tusk, came to power in an election in 2023 in which he vowed to liberalize the country's abortion law. But the coalition he leads spans a broad ideological divide, with lawmakers on the left who want to legalize abortion and conservatives strongly opposed.
Last year he acknowledged that he lacks the backing in parliamen t to change the law. Allowing abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy had been one of his campaign promises.
Under the current law, abortion is only allowed in cases of rape or incest or if the woman's life or health is at risk. A new restriction took effect under the previous conservative government removing a right to abortion in the case of fetal deformities. That sparked massive street protests.
In practice, activists say, many women have abortions on their own with pills obtained from abroad.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
a day ago
- New Statesman
Donald Tusk's self-own
Photo by NurPhoto/Getty It's no surprise that the marginal win on 2 June of Poland's President-elect, Karol Nawrocki, has rattled politics internationally considering his anti-EU stance – and his victory couldn't have been more of a blow to Poland's prime minister, Donald Tusk. Sensing the country's politics have once again become destabilised, Tusk called for a vote of confidence on Monday (11 June) in an attempt to bolster his party and strengthen their political power. 'I needed this vote for obvious reasons,' Tusk said after the votes have been cast. 'There have been speculations that this government won't be able to support itself and it's difficult to work in these conditions.' Yet the vote did little to prove his critics wrong. Marginal wins have recently become depressingly commonplace in Polish politics: in the first round of the presidential election, Rafał Trzaskowski narrowly won before Nawrocki secured the office with a 0.9 per cent advantage in the second round. Now Tusk has garnered the support of just 53 per cent of the Polish parliament, the Sejm. Rather than proving that Polish MPs have trust in his leadership, the vote of confidence has further demonstrated that Poland is divided. One member of the opposition said that what Tusk called on himself was in fact a 'vote of no confidence'. Only seven members of the Sejm abstained from voting, including Jarosław Kaczynski, the leader of the right-wing Law and Justice party, whose relations with Tusk have been tense since his first term as prime minister in 2007. So, what did the vote of confidence achieve? Simply put: nothing. The question period that proceeded the vote was less of a Q&A than an opportunity for Tusk's opponents to air their grievances in front of one another. Addressing the 'usually not present' prime minister – a phrase that many members of the opposition wielded to highlight Tusk's frequent lack of attendance in the Sejm – the usual repertoire of issues was broached ranging from education, public spending, the national healthcare system and the prime minister's systematic failures in their regard. As the question period dragged on, the condemnations disguised as questions became more audacious. A Law and Justice MP, Łukasz Kmita, called Tusk's leadership pathological and only possible thanks to his 'kiss-asses'. This sentiment was shared by fellow Law and Justice MP Zbigniew Bogucki who called Tusk's premiership 'pato-władza' – pathological governance. Another MP addressed Tusk as 'Herr Tusk' and proceeded to speak to him 'in a language he will understand' – German. The anti-German sentiment of the opposition was impossible to ignore, especially aimed at the prime minister. For years Tusk has been the subject of conspiracy theories that paint him as a 'German spy' due to his pro-EU sentiments, allyship with Germany – a position some view as selling Poland out – and his German heritage on his mother's side. So, yes, Donald Tusk won his vote, but he didn't exactly bolster confidence. In the past, the vote of confidence has been a tool wielded in difficult and important political moments – something Tusk has experience with having called on it in 2012 and 2014. This is one of those significant political moments, yet the tactic failed. Rather than proving unity, the vote drew a firm divisive line. With an upcoming parliamentary reshuffle in July and the presidency of Nawrocki starting in August, the country is entering a summer of political disturbance. According to United Surveys, 44.8 per cent of the Polish public think that Tusk should resign – a sentiment clearly shared with many members of the Sejm. The political divide in the country and in the Polish parliament will lead to further disillusionment and political fatigue. Nawrocki's presidency will not only add to the domestic political unrest but will also have an inevitable ripple effect on politics and policy beyond Poland's borders. [See also: The world is finally turning against the war on Gaza] Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
Metro
a day ago
- Metro
MP kicked out of parliament for second time after trashing LGBT exhibit
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video A far-right politician has been kicked out of the Polish parliament for destroying an exhibition about LGBTQ+ equality. Grzegorz Braun ripped down posters which had been put up in the corridors of Poland's parliament building and stamped on them. Braun was accused of antisemitism in 2013 when he extinguished Hannukah candles with a fire extinguisher. And he has now made his dislike of the LGBTQ+ community even clearer than before by trashing the exhibition on Wednesday. Braun served as a member of the lower house of Poland's parliament between 2019 and 2024, and he's currently a Member of the European Parliament representing Lesser Poland and Świętokrzyskie. He ran as a presidential candidate in 2015, receiving less than 1% of the vote, and again in the early round of this year's presidential election where he received about 6% of the vote. A traditionalist Catholic, Braun has not been shy to express his anti-American, anti-Ukrainian, and anti-LGBTQ+ views. In 2023 he destroyed a Christmas tree decorated with Ukrainian, EU and LGBTQ+ flags in the Kraków district court building. With thousands of members from all over the world, our vibrant LGBTQ+ WhatsApp channel is a hub for all the latest news and important issues that face the LGBTQ+ community. Simply click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! Don't forget to turn on notifications! And earlier this year, on March 18, Braun vandalised a public exhibition in the town of Opole depicting equality marches in the city, put on by a local LGBTQ+ group. More Trending He spray painted 'stop the propaganda of deviation' over display boards in the town's market square. He claimed the exhibit, titled 'There is more of us! Let's provoke equality' violated the Code on Petty Offences which prohibits 'indecent behaviour' in public and reported it to the police. In response, the town's mayor cancelled Braun's contract to rent a town hall for a campaign event, and said they would try to seek damages of 35,000zloty (£6,900). Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Naomi Watts and Liev Schreiber's transgender daughter Kai, 16, speaks out for the first time MORE: Billie Eilish, JoJo Siwa, and Fletcher are all dating men and the internet is spiralling MORE: New train to span 745 miles linking five European countries — and tickets are £40
Spectator
2 days ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
